2020 Ohio 4659
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- 2008 indictment; on October 5, 2009 Britford entered an Alford plea to a lesser-included felonious-assault count with a three-year firearm specification; total sentence 10 years and 3 years post-release control.
- Britford filed multiple postjudgment motions and appeals; prior appeals were dismissed as untimely or rejected on res judicata grounds.
- On March 8, 2019 Britford was arrested and charged in municipal court with carrying a firearm while under disability (Franklin M.C. No. 2019-CRA-4441); that municipal case was dismissed March 18, 2019 (apparently pending reindictment).
- In April 2019 the Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction sanctioned Britford for a parole violation in the original case (200 days).
- On August 23, 2019 Britford filed a pro se motion in the common pleas court seeking to vacate his 2009 sentence and void the conviction, arguing the municipal complaint was not notarized under Crim.R. 3 and thus the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the motion on September 3, 2019. On appeal the Tenth District held the filing was an untimely petition for postconviction relief that did not meet statutory exceptions, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the petition should have been dismissed (court modified judgment to dismiss).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain Britford's motion challenging the municipal complaint (notarization) or whether the filing must be treated as an untimely postconviction petition | The municipal complaint was sworn; Crim.R.4(E)(2) permits complaint after warrantless arrest; the motion is barred by res judicata and, if construed as postconviction relief, untimely | The municipal complaint was not notarized per Crim.R.3, making the complaint and resulting conviction a nullity and depriving the court of jurisdiction | Court construed the filing as an untimely postconviction petition that did not meet R.C. 2953.23(A) exceptions; the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the petition was dismissed (judgment modified) |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (recognizes Alford plea)
- State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358 (Ohio 2018) (timeliness limits on postconviction petitions are jurisdictional)
- State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)